|
|
| Author |
Message |
md
|
|
The Shostakovich Item
| 
May 22 11:48 UTC 2001 |
In another conference, Mary Remmers mentioned that Dmitri
Shostakovich's 5th symphony is her current favorite symphony. Imho,
everyone should go through a phase where Shostakovich's 5th is their
fave. Then you should move on to the 10th, which is his masterpiece,
then sample the 7th, which resembles the 5th a little, then try and
tackle the 4th, etc. Shostakovich was one of the last great
romantic/modern symphonists.
He sounds very Mahlerian to my ears, but for some reason I like the
Russian version better than the Austrian one. He's more truly modern,
for one thing, and his sound is more focused, more professional
sounding. Shostakovich himself revered Mahler. When Stravinsky went
to Russia in the early '60s, he supposedly told Shostakovich, "But we
must move beyond Mahler." Shostakovich was crestfallen. Stravinsky
could be a dick sometimes.
Shostakovich was cruelly persecuted by Stalin and his lackeys. In the
book Testimony by Shostakovich's student Solomon Volkov, Shostakovich
is quoted as saying that many of his symphonies, including the 5th, 7th
and 10th, have programs describing the horrors of life under Stalin.
The famous victorious final measures of the 5th symphony, for example,
are supposed to sound forced, as if a mass of humans were not actually
rejoicing, but shouting "Our business is rejoicing! Our business is
rejoicing!" In the 10th, composed right after Stalin's death, the
scherzo is supposed to be a musical portrait of Stalin, and the 3rd and
4th movements are supposed to represent the near-extinction and
ultimate triumph of Shostakovich himself, who is represented by a 4-
note theme.
What does anyone else think of Shostakovich? Which are your favorite
compositions of his?
|
| 49 responses total. |
mary
|
|
response 1 of 49:
|
May 22 13:19 UTC 2001 |
Gawd, you'd be in pig's heaven discussing this with our
conductor, Michael. He's read the same books. When he is
trying to get a specific feel to a passage he simply tells
us some of what what going on in Shostakovich's life when
he was writing the music. The stories are amazing.
My favorite movement in the 5th is that second movement
which is the closest thing I know of to crying clowns.
I guess Shostakovich was being ordered to write more "upbeat"
music. The second movement was his response.
And of course the finale is gut-wrenching and very Mahleresk.
It's a technically demanding piece to play.
|
krj
|
|
response 2 of 49:
|
May 23 19:44 UTC 2001 |
((The Grexers On Stage item is not cross-posted to the Classical.cf.
Should it be? Mary is appearing with the Life Sciences Orchestra
tonight at Hill Auditorium in Ann Arbor; see the On Stage item in
Agora/Music for details...))
|
dbratman
|
|
response 3 of 49:
|
May 23 21:44 UTC 2001 |
I'm glad you inspired and started this, Michael and Mary. Shostakovich
is my favorite of all 20th century composers, and I'll put up an
argument to call him the greatest composer of that century: certainly
the greatest of symphonies after Mahler, and the greatest of string
quartets with the possible exception of Bartok.
Neither of whom I much care for: I know that Shostakovich revered
Mahler, and I understand the similarities, but to me their music feels
very different. It's a matter of personality as expressed in the
music. Shostakovich, even in his manic moments, has a pure sombreness
that contrasts with Mahler's messy angst, and this is reflected in
their structures: Shostakovich's clear and rigid, Mahler's falling all
over the place. Some like that; I don't.
I am highly skeptical, though not entirely disbelieving, of Volkovism.
I am very disturbed that it's become the received wisdom, because there
are serious questions unsolved, both about the authenticity of what
Volkov edited, and about Shostakovich's own self-perception if the
Volkov papers are real. And the mickey-mousing of the (hysterically)
pro-Volkov critic Ian MacDonald is repulsive: this moment is Stalin
stepping before the party congress, etc. This is a symphony, not "The
Sorcerer's Apprentice." The music must stand or fall as music
regardless of what it may mean. I liked Shostakovich back when
everyone thought he was a Soviet hack: I still like him now that
everyone thinks he's a secret dissident. It's the same music.
Mary, don't be put off by the remark, "Everyone should go through a
phase where the Fifth is their fave." It's just that the 5th is indeed
a great symphony (especially the third, slow movement) and as the most
famous it's the one people hear first, and some never get beyond it.
But there's no harm in returning to it.
More anon.
|
md
|
|
response 4 of 49:
|
May 23 23:03 UTC 2001 |
I hope Mary isn't put off by my remark that everyone should go through
a phase when Shostakovichs 5th is their favorite symphony. I certainly
didn't mean it as off-putting. All I meant was that I sincerely
empathize with Mary's comment. I went through the same phase when I
was in high school. The music is *so* dramatic. It has an emotional
urgency that just grabs you and won't let go. (Btw, I took Mary to
mean that it's currently her favorite *symphony*, period, not just her
favorite Shostakovich symphony.)
I am a bit skeptical about Volkov, too, especially in view of
Shostakovich's own son's criticism of Testimony. Like you, I loved the
5th back when I believed it really was "a Soviet artist's reply to just
criticism." And I will never be able to think of the "Leningrad"
symphony as anything other than the war momument Shostakovich first
unveiled it as.
I'm a hopeless Bartok fanatic, btw, so I will never admit that
Shostakovich's quartet series is the equal of Bartok's, even if it's
true. ;-)
|
md
|
|
response 5 of 49:
|
May 23 23:13 UTC 2001 |
Some specific Shostakovich issues:
What do you think of his piano music? His series of Preludes, which I
haven't heard in years, knocked me sideways when I first heard it.
Do you have a favorite symphony? A favorite symphony excerpt? My
favorite is the 10th. My favorite Shostakovich moments are the buildup
to the brutal march, and the march itself, in the 1st movt of the 5th;
and the thermonuclear war (how did he know, back in 1930-something?)
followed by that long, long pedal C and the beating heart that slowly
falters and finally stops, in the last mvt of the 4th.
|
md
|
|
response 6 of 49:
|
May 23 23:17 UTC 2001 |
And I think the greatest single symphonic movement he ever wrote is the
first movement of the 10th. I wouldn't argue if you said it was the
greatest symphonic movement of the 20th century. Mahler came close, in
the last movement of his 6th. I'd nominate a Sibelius or a Vaughan
Williams movement, but those are personal tastes that I doubt many
other listeners would agree with.
|
mary
|
|
response 7 of 49:
|
May 24 13:48 UTC 2001 |
I'm not all wounded by Michael's comments as he pretty much
has my experience pegged. I'm one of those folks who started
exploring classical music when I was well into adulthood.
I bought my first classical recording in 1981.
I will seek out a copy of the 10th and see how it goes.
But first I'd like to tarry here, letting moments of
the 5th roll around my memory for a few more weeks.
Then I'll go back and listen to my last most favorite
symphony, Mahler's 9th. But most of all I realize
that calling anything a "favorite" is pure drama.
|
md
|
|
response 8 of 49:
|
May 24 17:55 UTC 2001 |
Zackly. Nothing wrong with it, though.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 9 of 49:
|
May 24 22:27 UTC 2001 |
Actually, I'm gonna make the shameful admission that almost the only
Shostakovich I know is his piano music. The first time I heard his Preludes
& Fugues, I was pretty underwhelmed -- I was expecting either Bach or Bartok,
and I didn't really get much of either. But this is a fantastic piece. The
pretty melodies and baroque forms lull you into thinking you're listening to
something well-behaved and Classical, but there's some serious derangement
lurking under some of them.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 10 of 49:
|
May 25 06:29 UTC 2001 |
I actually have heard little of Shostakovich's piano music. Rather a
gap, I admit, but I'm not a real big piano fan and I tend not to follow
up piano music unless it struck me heavily on first listen, and
Shostakovich's didn't. (Prokofiev's did.)
I'll agree with the general consensus that the Tenth is his greatest
symphony. The greatest symphony by the (all-around) greatest
symphonist makes it surely one of the half-dozen or so greatest
symphonies of the 20th century. And what's striking, given that the
20th century in classical music was self-advertised as the infinite
extension of complexity (Webern packing worlds into nutshells, that
sort of thing), is - especially if you look at the score - how plain
and simple, and devoid of that kind of analytical complexity, the Tenth
is. Shostakovich's greatness lies in his breadth, his wide-scale
vision - that's what makes a great symphonist great - and in his
emotional effects.
For a specific, watch how the DSCH motto emerges out of similar phrases
(inversions, transpositions, etc.) earlier on in the work. It makes
the final motto kind of inevitable, rather than sticking out like a
sore thumb, as many composers' special themes are.
(If anyone reading this doesn't know what the DSCH motto is, I'll
explain on request.)
I have one very fond memory of the Tenth, and it says a lot about what
Shostakovich means to me. I often take my Walkman and a few classical
CDs with me on trips. Not too long ago I was in Hawaii, staying on
Waikiki. It was pleasant enough in some respects, but the endless
Hawaiian music, nice enough in small doses, began to get on my nerves.
Especially the hotel elevators, which had a very small repertoire
playing constantly at high volume.
So one afternoon I drew the shades in my hotel room, doused the lights,
put on my earphones, and listened to Shostakovich's Tenth in the dark.
The sense of cool, clear refreshment was overwhelming.
|
md
|
|
response 11 of 49:
|
May 25 11:50 UTC 2001 |
DSCH = Dmitri SCHostakowitsch, as it's spelled by the Germans. There
is a German convention that allows you to spell things using musical
notes. D S C H would be D E-flat C B. Those four notes appear as an
innocuous-sounding phrase in the second theme of the 3rd movement of
the 10th. The phrase eventually detaches itself, and engages in a
quarrel with a five-note horn theme that keeps reappearing, like a
stern warning, whenever poor DSCH tries to have a little fun. At the
end of the 3rd movement, DSCH is reduced to a terrified whisper in the
piccolo. It comes back halfway through the finale, literally with a
vengeance, when it obliterates the "Stalin" theme from the scherzo with
a fortissimo blast by the whole orchestra. DSCH seems a bit shocked by
this, and takes a while to recover its composure, but eventually it
joins a jaunty march tune and preside triumphantly over the concluding
measures.
It all sounds rather tedious and didactic when you spell it out like
this. When you listen to the symphony, it knocks you right off your
feet.
Shostakovich used the DSCH motto in several other works, most notably
in the 8th quartet.
|
oddie
|
|
response 12 of 49:
|
May 26 03:51 UTC 2001 |
Ian MacDonald, the "hysterically pro-Volkov critic", has a web site called
"Music under Soviet rule" at http://www.siue.edu/~aho/musov/musov.html
if anyone wants to read some of his rather caustic commentaries...
|
dbratman
|
|
response 13 of 49:
|
May 27 03:32 UTC 2001 |
Anyone who wants to hear the DSCH motif in situ, I'd recommend you
start with the 8th Quartet, probably his greatest, which has it even
more conspicuously all over the place than in the 10th Symphony.
I didn't think that badly of MacDonald, even with all his mickey-
mousing interpretations, after reading his book "The New Shostakovich"
(which, if you take it with a grain of salt or two, is actually helpful
to understanding the works, and which takes a judicious position
towards Volkov). But reading his above-mentioned website caused me to
change my mind about him.
While we're naming favorite Shostakovich symphonies, I'll put in a plug
for the Eleventh. The second movement depicts the 1905 Winter Palace
massacre (or the Soviet invasion of Hungary, or whatever exercise of
intense evil that you prefer), and is the single most hair-raising
piece of music I've ever heard.
I've heard this symphony twice in concert, once conducted by Semyon
Bychkov, who has a distinctive way with this music; and a third time
under unusual circumstances. A pair of Russian musicologists concocted
a score for Eisenstein's (silent) "Potemkin" by stitching together
large chunks of Shostakovich, including most of the 10th & 11th
symphonies, parts of the 5th & 8th and a few others. The San Francisco
Symphony played this live to the film a few years ago. Highly
effective, and I hope this score is, or will be, issued with a tape or
DVD release of the film.
However, if I were going to pick a single movement as a sample of what
a Shostakovich symphony sounds like, I'd still go with the 3rd movement
of the Fifth. Any other candidates?
|
md
|
|
response 14 of 49:
|
May 27 11:26 UTC 2001 |
I find it hard to listen to the third movememnt of the 5th. I'll hear
the first few notes, and my mind rapidly fills in the rest of the
movement. Then I have to sit there and actually listen to it, in slow
motion. Makes me impatient. At a performance by Bernstein and the NY
Phil in the late 1950s (soon after his celebrated first recording of it
came out) I saw a guy a couple of rows up doze off during the 3rd mvt.
When the finale started, he looked like someone waking up to a bombing
raid.
I always had a special affection for the middle movements of
the "Leningrad" symphony. They're both slowsoft-fastloud-slowsoft, but
different enough to make a nice contrast, and very, very
Shostakovichoid. (What's the adjective, anyway?)
|
md
|
|
response 15 of 49:
|
May 27 11:33 UTC 2001 |
[At that same performance, a friend of mine who brought binoculars with
her (we had student balcony passes] swore that at the stupendous climax
of the 1st mvt, when the whole orchestra seems to scream "NOOOOOOOOO!"
fortississimo, Bernstein threw his head back and thrust out his tongue
straight up in the air. I didn't notice that, but I have to say I
never saw him work up a sweat the way he did with that piece.]
|
md
|
|
response 16 of 49:
|
May 27 11:56 UTC 2001 |
One more Shostakovich 5th anecdote, as an example of the expressive
power of his music: When my kids were very young we'd sometimes play
the "happy or sad?" game with music. My seven-year-old son and I were
driving somewhere and the Shostakovich 5th came on. At the beginning
of the march section in the 1st mvt, when the horns and then the
trumpets play the march theme at the very bottom of their ranges, I
said, "Hey, is this happy music or sad music?" My son listened for a
few seconds, then said: "It's *mean* music."
|
dbratman
|
|
response 17 of 49:
|
May 29 07:32 UTC 2001 |
"Mean" music. Oh, that's good. I like that passage, but I'm not sure
I could have come up with as precise a way to characterize it.
Anyone, no matter how little they know about Volkov or the other
evidence, can participate in the Shostakovich interpretation game by
one simple act. Listen to the finale of the 5th. Do you find it
joyous, brutal, sarcastic, forced, something else, or any combination
of the above? That's what the whole controversy boils down to, really.
Before Volkov, the finale was considered an attempt at joyousness that
doesn't quite come off: a flaw in an otherwise great work. (And a
believable flaw, as joyous finales in minor-key symphonies have always
been problematic. Beethoven worked on the "Ode to Joy" of his Ninth
for thirty years, and many people still don't think it measures up to
the rest of the work. Early audiences really rolled their eyes at the
finale of Brahms's First. And Tchaikovsky, in his Pathetique, and
Mahler, in several works, worked themselves into contortions to avoid
writing attempted joyous finales.)
But Volkov's Shostakovich says, "Precisely! It's the enforced
joyousness of a terrorized people: it's supposed to not quite come
off." A startling reinterpretation when first proposed, and still in
ways difficult to wrap one's mind around.
Just purchased: Maxim S. conducts his father's 6th, Prague Symphony
Orch.,, on Supraphon, along with suites from "The Golden Age"
and "Katerina Izmaylova", neither of which I had. So far I've listened
to the 6th. The later movements are OK, but the first is too damned
slow and doesn't hold together.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 18 of 49:
|
May 31 05:33 UTC 2001 |
I'm obviously in love with the 5th, having played 2 movements (1st &
4th) starting in high school, and many years beyond, and knowing the
entire symphony from recordings. While the finale is great, and fun to
play (challenging, but what the heck?! :-), I truly admire the 1st
movement, in terms of multiple treatments of the theme. Yes, there are
quite nasty, jackboot overtones to the aforementioned section of the
horns and then trumpets, which is accompanied, don't forget, by low
piano rythmn (1 2& 3 4& etc.) to darken the mood further. I could go
on forever on that movement.
Another favorite work of DS for me is Festive Overture.
As far as IS's comment to DS about moving on from Mahler, it reminds me
acutely of me showing one of my scores to the late Prof. Bill Albright
at UM in a composition class, to be told "we don't need another
Mozart". I.e. traditional, tonal music has all been done, you must
find new ways to express yourself musically. Of course this is a new
point of view that would make any small town boy resist. And it's a
very academic position on things. But it was all for the better:
Having to actually write "contemporary" music gave me an important
appreciation for other musical forms, even if I don't choose to listen
to them often or write that way. But it's a hoot that IS's Rite of
Spring is considered "contemporary" to many people, even though it was
written in 1913. But I digress.
I have to admit that my favorite composers are Russian: Tchaikovsky,
Rimsky-Korsakov, Moussorgsky, Borodin, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, others.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 19 of 49:
|
May 31 18:32 UTC 2001 |
Re "we don't need another Mozart." Actually, in one sense, we've had
several more Mozarts. Mendelssohn, for one, was a Mozart: he had
Mozart's level of fluent genius, and there's a somewhat Mozartian air
to his music.
But I'm sure that's not what was meant. We don't need a carbon copy of
Mozart, to be sure, but that's because a carbon copy - of anyone -
wouldn't be any good. It's not the same as saying tonal music has "all
been done" - that's nonsense.
First, tonal music thrived for a century beyond Mozart, and in fact it
continued to thrive throughout the 20th century despite the attempts of
certain crusty academics to pretend it didn't. See Shostakovich, for
one example among many.
Second, Arnold Schoenberg himself said that there's plenty of great
music yet to be written in C Major.
Third, if we don't need another Mozart, we most certainly don't need
another Anton Webern, and yet little mechanical Weberns is exactly what
the music schools were trying to churn out for a while there.
Write what you want. Be as daring, or as conservative, as fits _your_
soul. Don't let anyone tell you something is obsolete. If people want
to write it, and listen to it, nothing is obsolete.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 20 of 49:
|
May 31 18:35 UTC 2001 |
PS: if people still consider "Rite of Spring" to be ultra-modern, maybe
that has something to do with the music as well as the audience? The
notion that the unpopularity of some modern music (not that Stravinsky
is unpopular) was solely the result of some mysterious balking by the
collective audiences of the world doesn't hold up.
|
keesan
|
|
response 21 of 49:
|
May 31 18:49 UTC 2001 |
Isn't most popular music tonal?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 22 of 49:
|
May 31 20:38 UTC 2001 |
Re: #21: Yes, by far. In fact, it might be hard to find something popular
that isn't tonal. Rite of Spring has much that is "tonal" to it, but also
much that is foreign to most listeners.
Re: #19: Well, if you're in a composition class at UM, and want a good grade
(and more importantly, want to learn something new), you better not write
particularly conservative or tonal! :-)
|
keesan
|
|
response 23 of 49:
|
Jun 1 01:51 UTC 2001 |
I read in a book on twentieth century music that there were two types of
composers - the ones who wrote original creative music that were supported
by teaching salaries and fellowships and the one that wrote tonal music that
were supported by the proceeds from their music. The book is written by a
composer (a 20th century composer). I suspect tonal music is more common in
the second category.
|
md
|
|
response 24 of 49:
|
Jun 1 13:47 UTC 2001 |
Could be. Some of the most popular composers took occasional teaching
jobs -- Aaron Copland at Tanglewood, e.g. -- but probably not because
they needed the money. Certainly not in Copland's case. There was a
lot of money to be made in listenable concert music. If Samuel Barber
had stopped composing altogether after writing the Adagio for Strings,
he still would've been set for life. Ditto Roy Harris and his 3rd
symphony. I don't think Vaughan Williams had a teaching career. Did
Benjamin Britten teach? Stravinsky never held down a teaching job
apart from a few Harvard lectures, even after he "converted" to
serialism, despite the fact that he never made much money on The
Firebird, Petrouchka and Le Sacre (due to lack of copyright agreements
with the Soviets).
The serialist/aleatory/stochastic/noise crowd were mostly academics in
this country, and their audience was and is very limited. It got so
bad that Milton Babbitt (who taught at Columbia University, I think)
felt compelled to write a sour-grapish article entitled "Who Cares if
You Listen?" A few serialst apologists like Alfred Rosen have tried to
make the case that serialist music does attract large audiences, but
they're just whistling in the dark. No orchestra will ever survive
programming such music, because almost everyone finds it unlistenable.
One exception that I know of is the American composer Elliott Carter,
whose modernist credentials couldn't be more impressive, and who was
able to live on a family fortune rather than teach. But even his
music, for all its difficulties, has a visceral dramatic quality that
you don't often hear in the academic composers. It's like serialism
tamed, or serialism pressed into emotional duty.
Anyway, the path Shostakovich took was the one his temperament led him
down. He always seemed to me to be one of the most honest and direct
of all composers.
|